DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 03/27/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 101024202913.0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carpenter et al. (US 2025/0090116) hereinafter known as Carpenter, and further in view of Bruder et al. (US 2007/0086561) hereinafter known as Bruder.
With regards to claim 1 and 12, Carpenter discloses a system and method for acquiring in vivo tomographic X-ray scatter data for tissue discrimination of breast tissue (Abstract; FIG. 7A-7B; [0068]) utilizing an X-ray source 701, an X-ray detector (detector 708), and a collimator 703 that shapes a primary X-ray radiation ([0062]; “… the collimator may modify the beam size and shape…”), the method comprising:
providing an X-ray image (FIG. 2; 202; transmission image)( [0081]; X-ray transmission image data)(FIG. 7A; 710), which was acquired in a first setting of the collimator in which the object under examination is illuminated ([0068]; standard or non-magnified transmission mode);
providing an auxiliary X-ray image (FIG. 15; [0075]; X-ray scatter measurements of tissue regions of interest 1503) , which was acquired in a second setting of the collimator in which one or more sub-regions of the X-ray detector are illuminated ([0068]; “FIG. 7A shows an embodiment of the mammography system in a magnification mode, …. 7B shows collimation in the X-ray source head shaping the cone beam into a pencil or fan beam, with a collimator 703 moved into the beam path to decrease background scatter. The pencil or fan beam illuminates the suspicious region of the breast tissue 705.) ([0067]; “…collimators can be moved or varied to illuminate specific subregions of the breast tissue.”), wherein each sub-region of the one or more sub-regions comprises an area that is less than a total area of the X-ray detector ([0068]; “The rest of the method for processing scatter data then proceeds as already described to reconstruct X-ray scatter spectra of the specified volume and provide the operator with a spatially resolved estimate of the likelihood of cancer in the specified subregion 710.”)[0072].
Carpenter teaches reconstructing a 2D or 3D X-ray radiodensity mammogram images 1503 using transmission data 1501 and X-ray scatter measurements 1502 [0075]. Carpenter further teaches that scatter data may be processed by background subtraction [0061].
Carpenter do not disclose;
subtracting at least a part of the auxiliary X-ray image from the X-ray image;
determining a scattered-radiation correction using image data from the X-ray detector obtained from the subtraction at least in a region of the one or more sub-regions;
correcting the X-ray image using the determined scattered-radiation correction.
In the same field of endeavor, Bruder discloses a method for scattered radiation correction of a CT system wherein at least one phantom, similar to the examined object at least in a subregion (Abstract). Bruder teaches that the values obtained by direct measurement of scattered radiation distribution at one or more phantoms can be used to carry out scattered radiation correction [0058]. Further, the reference teaches “During scanning of the object, the scattered radiation intensities, …., are subtracted from the measured intensities of the first focus/detector system while taking account of the spatial orientation of the focus/detector systems and the beam respectively considered. Finally, absorption values are calculated with the aid of the intensity values thus corrected, and CT pictures or CT volume data are thereby reconstructed.” (Abstract).
In view of Bruder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Carpenter to gain a scatter-correction method that subtracts at least a region of the one or more sub-regions and correct the X-ray image using the scattered-radiation correction. The motivation is to subtract a subregion scatter image that is not the region of interest to be examined and further reconstruct the corrected image highlighting the object in the region of interest.
With regards to claim 2, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sub-regions (Carpenter; 1503) comprise an overall area that is less than the total area of the X-ray detector. (Carpenter; [0075])
With regards to claim 3, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, before the subtracting:
pre-correcting the auxiliary X-ray image for scattered radiation using image data from the X-ray detector obtained in a collimator shadow. (Carpenter; [0054][0061])
With regards to claim 4, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sub-regions comprises a multiplicity of sub-regions. (Carpenter; FIG. 15; [0075]; 1503)
With regards to claim 5 and 13, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, discloses the method of claim 1 and 12, wherein the multiplicity of sub-regions comprises an overall area that is less than the total area of the X-ray detector. (Carpenter; FIG. 15; [0075]; 1503)
With regards to claim 6 and 14, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1 and 12, wherein a maximum area of each sub-region of the one or more sub-regions is 1/50 of the total area of the X-ray detector. However, Carpenter teaches of a magnification mode used to identify a region of interest that contains cancerous tissue [0026][0027]. Also, [0041] teaches of a reconstructed X-ray scatter spectra of the indicated voxels corresponding that corresponds to different tissue types. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to adapt the magnification mode, of Carpenter, to obtain a one or more sub-region that is 1/50 of the total area of the detector. The motivation is to obtain and/or remove subregion images/spectra of the surrounding tissues around the cancerous tissue.
With regards to claim 7, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein an X-ray dose during the acquisition of the auxiliary X-ray image is at most 1/10 of an X-ray dose during the acquisition of the X-ray image. However, Carpenter teaches of a magnification mode used to identify a region of interest that contains cancerous tissue [0026][0027]. Also, [0041] teaches of a reconstructed X-ray scatter spectra of the indicated voxels corresponding that corresponds to different tissue types. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to adapt the magnification mode, of Carpenter, to obtain a one or more sub-region that is 1/10 of the total area of the detector. The motivation is to obtain and/or remove subregion images/spectra of the surrounding tissues around the cancerous tissue.
With regards to claim 11, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the X-ray image is a two-dimensional X-ray image. (Carpenter; [0052]; X-ray radiodensity mammogram images can be two dimensional…”)
With regards to claim 15, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, discloses a medical X-ray device comprising:
an acquisition system configured to acquire an X-ray image and an auxiliary X-ray image, wherein the acquisition system comprises an X-ray detector, an X-ray source for emitting primary X-ray radiation, and a collimator that shapes the primary X-ray radiation, wherein the X-ray image is configured to be acquired in a first setting of the collimator in which an object under examination is illuminated, and wherein the auxiliary X-ray image is configured to be acquired in a second setting of the collimator in which one or more sub-regions of the X-ray detector are illuminated, wherein each sub-region of the one or more sub-regions comprises an area that is less than a total area of the X-ray detector (see the rejection of claim 1);
a control unit configured to control the medical X-ray device ([0009][0062]; control system);
a processing unit [0009][0077] configured to:
subtract at least a part of the auxiliary X-ray image from the X-ray image (see the rejection of claim 1);
determine a scattered-radiation correction using image data obtained from the subtraction at least in the region of the one or more sub-regions (see the rejection of claim 1); and
perform a scattered-radiation correction of the X-ray image (see the rejection of claim 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claim 8, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the X-ray image comprises a series of X-ray images acquired in succession.
With regards to claim 9, Carpenter, in view of Bruder, do not specifically disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing at least one intermediate auxiliary X-ray image, which was acquired in a third setting of the collimator in which one or more sub-regions of the X-ray detector are illuminated, wherein each sub-region of the one or more sub-regions for the at least one intermediate auxiliary X-ray image has an area that is in between the area of the second setting and the total area of the X-ray detector,
wherein the intermediate auxiliary X-ray image is used to refine the determined scattered-radiation correction.
Claim 10 is objected due to being dependent on objected base claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUGH H MAUPIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1495. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUGH MAUPIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights